First, I don't expect to see an 8 team playoff any time soon. And I hope that I won't.

Even if there were to be an expanded playoff, I don't think it's a sure thing that there would be a guaranteed slot for a G5 team. I think it would be more likely that we would see something like what we had in the early years of the BCS, where non-AQ conferences could get a representative if they had a team ranked very high. If I recall, any non-AQ school that finished ranked in the top six, and also ranked ahead of an AQ champion, could qualify. In fact, fairly recently both Boise State and TCU qualified in the same year.

It's one thing to guarantee a spot in an NY6 bowl that isn't part of the playoff. It's quite another to allow a team not ranked in the top 20 to displace a team ranked as high as #8 for a chance to compete for a championship. There's too much at stake for that.

Quote:First--upsets are not "normal". That's why they are upsets. Second--these were only "upsets" because of the "ranking".

When Boise "upset" Oklahoma -- Boise was Ranked Higher. Why does not that come to mind so easily for most? Because it was a G5. They weren't "supposed to". TCU was ranked higher than Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, for instance too. Point is, they lived Up to it in the BCS. They weren't proving the Voters wrong, is my point -- so you don't have "years and years".

We have *3* years. 2-1. The first two showed they were possibly ranked too low (which furthers your argument). But I also must say, Upsets between RANKED teams ARE normal, to an extent. Abnormal or rare does not mean <50%. There's upsets ALL the time throughout the season. As a side note, usually "upsets" are determined by Vegas. :)

Upsets happen a lot. #11 FSU beat #6 UM. #2 Clemson beat "unbeatable" #1 Alabama. #9 USC beat #5 PSU. Unranked Northwestern beat #23 Pitt! Unranked Wake Forrest beat #24 Temple!

Also, not just who-beats-who on ranking -- but also margin of victory. When people go "Ohhh, [this G5] got beat by 17pts by [this P5]," during the season, you can also point to that happening... #13 Louisville lost to #20 LSU by 20pts. #12 OK-State beat #10 Colorado, not by a tight score due to ranking (or Vegas) -- but by 30pts!! Unranked Miami-FL beat #16 West Virginia by 17pts! Baylor with no votes to be ranked Thumped Boise who had votes to be ranked and seen by all eyes as being better -- by 19pts!

So yes, upsets Happen. All. The. Time. That's just BOWL season I mentioned. 1 "week" worth of games, going by ranking.

Certainly by 3 NY6 G5 bowls, we don't have much to go on yet. All we know is that yeah, Top G5s compete when ranked lower, and can certainly Win like other teams ranked lower in other bowls.

Everyone knows the Top G5s are competitive. Well, not everyone. Fan bases look down too much, yes. And some analysts. But Vegas knows what's up (even I thought 8pt spread against Wisconsin seems small for WMU! It turned out to be an 8pt game thanks to a missed XP). And so do most analysts. Even the Committee.

You could say the Committee ranks too low -- and I'll agree to a certain extent. But the Committee rankings come out After the other ones, thankfully, so there's only so much they can be influenced by.

Here's what will squash the Top G5-AQ in a mere 8-team playoff: When the Top G5 is ranked #18-#24, which certainly will happen -- especially when coaches Leave (Houston, WMU just recently). They won't be playing #8-#14, like now in the NY6 (extends past 12 due to bowl-tie-ins). They'll be playing #1 (in an 8-team). Yeah, I said upsets happen and are normal. But not a ~#20 G5 taking out #1 Alabama. People will get upset, and understandably so, and it'll hurt the G5 image.

It's a fact that if they apply the same BCS/NY5 (10-team) thing for G5s to make it to the 8-team playoff, you don't have to be ranked as high compared to the teams in play (Top 12, to get in Top 8 vs 10). I think that Does take care of possible lower rankings for top G5s due to SoS and leaned assumptions. And in the very uncommon case a P5 Champ is ranked below #12 -- the G5 just has to match that to get an AQ.

Remember, it's the #8 team in the nation who's going to have a lot of complaints if that G5 is #20. You'd need Some sort of "earning" for it, IMO. Because G5 competition isn't the same as the P5, to win a conference. If they said Ranked #16 or higher for Top G5? I could live with that. But Always-Auto on an *8* team playoff? That's pretty ballsy when the Top G5 isn't ranked high at all... and could end up making the G5 being given "gimmies" when blown out by #1 seeds. At least if they were higher ranked, there'd be a better chance for a good game, or, possibly an upset.

I don't see the Committee in trouble if applying the BCS G5 qualifying rules to even a narrowed 8-team playoff -- UNLESS their rankings are dogging the Top G5 compared to the other major polls. Not just in 1 year, but seemingly as a trend. Then there's a case. But they have to be doing that first.

Quote:First, I don't expect to see an 8 team playoff any time soon. And I hope that I won't.

I do. 4 team playoffs aren't real playoffs. It's more a Play Off. They had 1 vs 2 to for Nat Champ, and then had a 3 vs 4 BCS bowl for ones who didn't quite make it. All they did was switch teams and said we'll give you another bowl to decide it (play it off). How can you NOT want a Real Playoff (8+ teams)?? :)

But actually I don't want 8-teams either. I want 12. A G5 would definitely qualify then. You'd just take the NY6 (12 teams), and have them in a 12-team playoff. Would be the best. No controversy over a G5 making it, and you'd have the Top 4 getting credit still too (a bye).

Quote:If I recall, any non-AQ school that finished ranked in the top six, and also ranked ahead of an AQ champion, could qualify. In fact, fairly recently both Boise State and TCU qualified in the same year.

I believe it was Top G5 Champ in the Top 12 would make it. I think Top 6 being an AQ meant that you couldn't be left out -- even if you didn't win your conference (P5s in practicality). So yeah, you could have 2 G5s that way, and taht's what happened.

But to be a G5 Conf Champ, I think Top 12 would make it... OR being ranked above a P5 Champ but STILL in the Top 16.

(01-20-2017 04:28 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:First--upsets are not "normal". That's why they are upsets. Second--these were only "upsets" because of the "ranking".

When Boise "upset" Oklahoma -- Boise was Ranked Higher. Why does not that come to mind so easily for most? Because it was a G5. They weren't "supposed to". TCU was ranked higher than Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, for instance too. Point is, they lived Up to it in the BCS. They weren't proving the Voters wrong, is my point -- so you don't have "years and years".

We have *3* years. 2-1. The first two showed they were possibly ranked too low (which furthers your argument). But I also must say, Upsets between RANKED teams ARE normal, to an extent. Abnormal or rare does not mean <50%. There's upsets ALL the time throughout the season. As a side note, usually "upsets" are determined by Vegas. :)

Upsets happen a lot. #11 FSU beat #6 UM. #2 Clemson beat "unbeatable" #1 Alabama. #9 USC beat #5 PSU. Unranked Northwestern beat #23 Pitt! Unranked Wake Forrest beat #24 Temple!

Also, not just who-beats-who on ranking -- but also margin of victory. When people go "Ohhh, [this G5] got beat by 17pts by [this P5]," during the season, you can also point to that happening... #13 Louisville lost to #20 LSU by 20pts. #12 OK-State beat #10 Colorado, not by a tight score due to ranking (or Vegas) -- but by 30pts!! Unranked Miami-FL beat #16 West Virginia by 17pts! Baylor with no votes to be ranked Thumped Boise who had votes to be ranked and seen by all eyes as being better -- by 19pts!

So yes, upsets Happen. All. The. Time. That's just BOWL season I mentioned. 1 "week" worth of games, going by ranking.

Certainly by 3 NY6 G5 bowls, we don't have much to go on yet. All we know is that yeah, Top G5s compete when ranked lower, and can certainly Win like other teams ranked lower in other bowls.

Everyone knows the Top G5s are competitive. Well, not everyone. Fan bases look down too much, yes. And some analysts. But Vegas knows what's up (even I thought 8pt spread against Wisconsin seems small for WMU! It turned out to be an 8pt game thanks to a missed XP). And so do most analysts. Even the Committee.

You could say the Committee ranks too low -- and I'll agree to a certain extent. But the Committee rankings come out After the other ones, thankfully, so there's only so much they can be influenced by.

Here's what will squash the Top G5-AQ in a mere 8-team playoff: When the Top G5 is ranked #18-#24, which certainly will happen -- especially when coaches Leave (Houston, WMU just recently). They won't be playing #8-#14, like now in the NY6 (extends past 12 due to bowl-tie-ins). They'll be playing #1 (in an 8-team). Yeah, I said upsets happen and are normal. But not a ~#20 G5 taking out #1 Alabama. People will get upset, and understandably so, and it'll hurt the G5 image.

It's a fact that if they apply the same BCS/NY5 (10-team) thing for G5s to make it to the 8-team playoff, you don't have to be ranked as high compared to the teams in play (Top 12, to get in Top 8 vs 10). I think that Does take care of possible lower rankings for top G5s due to SoS and leaned assumptions. And in the very uncommon case a P5 Champ is ranked below #12 -- the G5 just has to match that to get an AQ.

Remember, it's the #8 team in the nation who's going to have a lot of complaints if that G5 is #20. You'd need Some sort of "earning" for it, IMO. Because G5 competition isn't the same as the P5, to win a conference. If they said Ranked #16 or higher for Top G5? I could live with that. But Always-Auto on an *8* team playoff? That's pretty ballsy when the Top G5 isn't ranked high at all... and could end up making the G5 being given "gimmies" when blown out by #1 seeds. At least if they were higher ranked, there'd be a better chance for a good game, or, possibly an upset.

I don't see the Committee in trouble if applying the BCS G5 qualifying rules to even a narrowed 8-team playoff -- UNLESS their rankings are dogging the Top G5 compared to the other major polls. Not just in 1 year, but seemingly as a trend. Then there's a case. But they have to be doing that first.

Quote:First, I don't expect to see an 8 team playoff any time soon. And I hope that I won't.

I do. 4 team playoffs aren't real playoffs. It's more a Play Off. They had 1 vs 2 to for Nat Champ, and then had a 3 vs 4 BCS bowl for ones who didn't quite make it. All they did was switch teams and said we'll give you another bowl to decide it (play it off). How can you NOT want a Real Playoff (8+ teams)?? :)

But actually I don't want 8-teams either. I want 12. A G5 would definitely qualify then. You'd just take the NY6 (12 teams), and have them in a 12-team playoff. Would be the best. No controversy over a G5 making it, and you'd have the Top 4 getting credit still too (a bye).

Quote:If I recall, any non-AQ school that finished ranked in the top six, and also ranked ahead of an AQ champion, could qualify. In fact, fairly recently both Boise State and TCU qualified in the same year.

I believe it was Top G5 Champ in the Top 12 would make it. I think Top 6 being an AQ meant that you couldn't be left out -- even if you didn't win your conference (P5s in practicality). So yeah, you could have 2 G5s that way, and taht's what happened.

But to be a G5 Conf Champ, I think Top 12 would make it... OR being ranked above a P5 Champ but STILL in the Top 16.

My argument for that issue is simple. Win your conference. You can be #22 and still be in the playoff if you win your conference. If your don't win your conference, you're just hoping things fall right. I have absolutely no problem with any team that didn't win its conference being left out (they get to go to a traditional major bowl on NYD). The G5 path is still extremely difficult---4 G5 champs will win their conference and still be left out. Its basically a 65 team conference.

Besides, there are still 2 wild cards around to give out to deserving runner ups and to guarantee that the #1 and #2 team are ALWAYS in the playoff---regardless of CCG upsets. In 2011 UH was #6 in the nation and in line to go to the Sugar Bowl---but they failed to take care of business in the CCG. They went from the Sugar Bowl to the Ticket City Bowl in 4 hours. My sympathy for teams that didn't win the their conference but whine because they aren't in the playoff is extremely limited. Win your conference---go to the playoff. Beyond that, getting in is nothing more than a second chance gift.

If (when) the playoff goes to 8 teams, resistance to a G5 autobid could mean that NOBODY gets an automatic bid.

Logic: If you win your (P5) conference, but you're not in the top 8, that's really your problem.

Conference champs getting the tournament in really brings a lot of excitement to the conference tournaments in basketball. It also gets the entire country interested in the tournament because every confernce is represented.

I think rewarding conference champs in football only makes the regular season that much more important and exciting. It will never happen but allowing all the FBS conference champs a spot in the playoff would likely be even better than the current system of having the same few teams play in a 4 team playoff.

The game here is to give the g-5 just enough to be punching bags but not enough to actually make anything of themselves. But since they are the desperate ones it's likely the g-5 gets screwed even more than they are now with 1 decent bowl spot being enough to keep all of them happy. Path to a championship has already been shut down. Now it's a path to a NY6 bowl that all those teams play for. A 1 in what 60+ chance that will more than likely go to the AAC or MW most seasons.

Why you have to have the BEST g5 with an auto bid is that you can't trust the committee to rank teams fairly,


Why selection committees are bogus one has to only look at last years basketball tourney.

Middle Tenn should have had a much better seed than a 15.
But they beat # 2 seeded Michigan St

Every other sport you win your conference you advance to the playoff

(01-20-2017 06:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If (when) the playoff goes to 8 teams, resistance to a G5 autobid could mean that NOBODY gets an automatic bid.

Logic: If you win your (P5) conference, but you're not in the top 8, that's really your problem.

That I could get behind. More to the point, it is something ESPN could get behind. What they can't get behind is paying for an annual mismatch just to satisfy some need to throw the G5 a bone. And the P5 teams that are put at a disadvantage because they have to play legitimate contenders in the first round while one of them gets a walkover aren't going to be too happy with the idea either.

10 conference champions, 10 auto bids
Man if it ever gets to this can you emagin the shift in recruiting, wow it would be awesome to watch that happen

(01-20-2017 06:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If (when) the playoff goes to 8 teams, resistance to a G5 autobid could mean that NOBODY gets an automatic bid.

Logic: If you win your (P5) conference, but you're not in the top 8, that's really your problem.

That I could get behind. More to the point, it is something ESPN could get behind. What they can't get behind is paying for an annual mismatch just to satisfy some need to throw the G5 a bone. And the P5 teams that are put at a disadvantage because they have to play legitimate contenders in the first round while one of them gets a walkover aren't going to be too happy with the idea either.

Where the heck to you get the team would be a walkover.
The only walkovers you had in this years playoffs were from P5
conferences (Washington & Ohio St got waxed)

For the last 3 years the G-5 team has beat the P5 team twice and this year's Western Michigan played Wisconsin Well...

So don't let the facts stand in your way.

Quote:If (when) the playoff goes to 8 teams, resistance to a G5 autobid could mean that NOBODY gets an automatic bid.

I know the push for an 8-team team from those who have influence up there is due to giving every P5 winner an auto-bid. So in the end, it wouldn't be that. 8-teams is coming (in a non-sexual way), and it won't be too far in the future when it does.

Quote:Win your conference---go to the playoff. Beyond that, getting in is nothing more than a second chance gift.

I agree having to win the conference before you can complain about being left out of anything elite. Of course, if you're ranked higher than the Top Half of # of slots in said "pool" (# of teams in top bowls or # of teams in a playoff) -- then you have the right to complain. Like if there's 10 BCS Bowl Teams, if you're ranked #5 or higher -- yeah, you should get an AQ regardless of conference. I think it was #6 or higher back then because there was 6 Power conferences who do get an AQ, so basically you automatically get an at-large.

Quote:It will never happen but allowing all the FBS conference champs a spot in the playoff would likely be even better than the current system of having the same few teams play in a 4 team playoff.

Yeah, there's A LOT of things that'd be better than a 4-team playoff. IMO, the best would be the current NY6 just having a 12-team playoff. They're already making 12 teams elite. Why not just make that a playoff (besides further taking away from Big Bowl conference associations; oh boo hoo, damage has already been done) -- is what I ask.

Quote:10 conference champions, 10 auto bids

It'd take away anti-G5 complaints, given that there'd be 2x more auto-bids than G5 Conf Champs coming in. But would be much harder of a playoff to feasibly pull off and get approved.

Besides the NY6 (always a G5) doing a 12-team playoff (instead of 4 Bowls + 4-team playoff as it is now)... one option to include ALL conference champs but not p!ssing off the P5 World:

8-team Playoff:
#7 Slot - #7-#10 Ranked Teams in a 4-team PLAY-IN for #7 Slot
#8 Slot - Top 4 G5s PLAY-IN for #8 Slot

That would work -- although Extend the playoff timeline -- but give room for regular bowls more airtime during that play-in time.

(01-20-2017 07:11 PM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If (when) the playoff goes to 8 teams, resistance to a G5 autobid could mean that NOBODY gets an automatic bid.

Logic: If you win your (P5) conference, but you're not in the top 8, that's really your problem.

That I could get behind. More to the point, it is something ESPN could get behind. What they can't get behind is paying for an annual mismatch just to satisfy some need to throw the G5 a bone. And the P5 teams that are put at a disadvantage because they have to play legitimate contenders in the first round while one of them gets a walkover aren't going to be too happy with the idea either.

Where the heck to you get the team would be a walkover.
The only walkovers you had in this years playoffs were from P5
conferences (Washington & Ohio St got waxed)

For the last 3 years the G-5 team has beat the P5 team twice and this year's Western Michigan played Wisconsin Well...

So don't let the facts stand in your way.

Those may be "facts", but not really relevant ones. Last I looked, none of those teams played what would have been the #1 seed in a playoff. And that's what you would get in an 8 team playoff with a guaranteed bid for a G5 school.

(01-20-2017 07:48 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  8-team Playoff:
#7 Slot - #7-#10 Ranked Teams in a 4-team PLAY-IN for #7 Slot
#8 Slot - Top 4 G5s PLAY-IN for #8 Slot

No to a 4-team play-in. There are many who think going to an 8-team playoff would already be asking college players to play too many games. A 4-team play-in on top of that would mean playing two MORE games beyond what some consider too many already.

Let's use WMU as an example.

Under this scenario, after going 13-0, they'd then have to play two rounds of this play-in. Assuming they win, that's 15-0. Now, a team that has played 15 games is put against a team that has played 13. Even if they win that and advance to the semi's, that's game 16. If they made it to the natty, that's SEVENTEEN GAMES.

Oklahoma as #7 would have also fallen into this category. Under next year's rules they'd have played a Big XII championship game.

No one is ever going to accept a system where college players could potentially have to play 17 games. Even if you reduce the regular season by a game or two, the teams that emerge from the play-in will still have played two games more than their opposition. They'll be battered, beaten, and bruised, and at a severe disadvantage.

Football isn't like basketball where you can play back to back. The play-in might work in that sport, but it just isn't feasible for football.

(01-20-2017 07:04 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  10 conference champions, 10 auto bids
Man if it ever gets to this can you emagin the shift in recruiting, wow it would be awesome to watch that happen

Why would that affect recruiting?

(01-20-2017 07:48 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  8-team Playoff:
#7 Slot - #7-#10 Ranked Teams in a 4-team PLAY-IN for #7 Slot
#8 Slot - Top 4 G5s PLAY-IN for #8 Slot

That would work -- although Extend the playoff timeline -- but give room for regular bowls more airtime during that play-in time.

That isn't an 8 team playoff. It's 14 teams. Why not just invite the top 16 teams? That would reduce the number of playoff rounds to four instead of five.

(01-21-2017 11:10 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 07:04 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  10 conference champions, 10 auto bids
Man if it ever gets to this can you emagin the shift in recruiting, wow it would be awesome to watch that happen

Why would that affect recruiting?

It would affect recruiting big time.
Every recruit would like a chance to play for a championship.
Right now any P5 school recruiting a player considering going to a g5 school
can say with us you have a chance to be a champion with them no way.

The mid-majors in basketball have a chance at a championship and it doesn't effect recruiting. And that's basketball, where you only need to hit on 3 or 4 recruits a year to be nationally competitive instead of 23 or 24.

(01-21-2017 12:07 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  The mid-majors in basketball have a chance at a championship and it doesn't effect recruiting. And that's basketball, where you only need to hit on 3 or 4 recruits a year to be nationally competitive instead of 23 or 24.

Exactly. I don't believe there would be any noticeable effect on recruiting. I agree that the top players want to play where they think they have a legitimate chance to win a championship. I don't think any of them would think they have a better chance to do that at Western Michigan than at Michigan or Michigan State. Or at Troy instead of Alabama or Auburn.

(01-21-2017 01:37 AM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 07:48 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  8-team Playoff:
#7 Slot - #7-#10 Ranked Teams in a 4-team PLAY-IN for #7 Slot
#8 Slot - Top 4 G5s PLAY-IN for #8 Slot

No to a 4-team play-in. There are many who think going to an 8-team playoff would already be asking college players to play too many games. A 4-team play-in on top of that would mean playing two MORE games beyond what some consider too many already.

Let's use WMU as an example.

Under this scenario, after going 13-0, they'd then have to play two rounds of this play-in. Assuming they win, that's 15-0. Now, a team that has played 15 games is put against a team that has played 13. Even if they win that and advance to the semi's, that's game 16. If they made it to the natty, that's SEVENTEEN GAMES.

Oklahoma as #7 would have also fallen into this category. Under next year's rules they'd have played a Big XII championship game.

No one is ever going to accept a system where college players could potentially have to play 17 games. Even if you reduce the regular season by a game or two, the teams that emerge from the play-in will still have played two games more than their opposition. They'll be battered, beaten, and bruised, and at a severe disadvantage.

Football isn't like basketball where you can play back to back. The play-in might work in that sport, but it just isn't feasible for football.

Actually, I believe in your example a play-in team would have to play 18 games to win it all, not 17. And if you insist on including all conference champions, you can't eliminate the CCG's to shorten the season. A five round playoff just isn't feasible with a 12 game regular season. And 114 schools aren't going to agree to give up one or two home games so 14 can play on.

(01-21-2017 12:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 01:37 AM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 07:48 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  8-team Playoff:
#7 Slot - #7-#10 Ranked Teams in a 4-team PLAY-IN for #7 Slot
#8 Slot - Top 4 G5s PLAY-IN for #8 Slot

No to a 4-team play-in. There are many who think going to an 8-team playoff would already be asking college players to play too many games. A 4-team play-in on top of that would mean playing two MORE games beyond what some consider too many already.

Let's use WMU as an example.

Under this scenario, after going 13-0, they'd then have to play two rounds of this play-in. Assuming they win, that's 15-0. Now, a team that has played 15 games is put against a team that has played 13. Even if they win that and advance to the semi's, that's game 16. If they made it to the natty, that's SEVENTEEN GAMES.

Oklahoma as #7 would have also fallen into this category. Under next year's rules they'd have played a Big XII championship game.

No one is ever going to accept a system where college players could potentially have to play 17 games. Even if you reduce the regular season by a game or two, the teams that emerge from the play-in will still have played two games more than their opposition. They'll be battered, beaten, and bruised, and at a severe disadvantage.

Football isn't like basketball where you can play back to back. The play-in might work in that sport, but it just isn't feasible for football.

Actually, I believe in your example a play-in team would have to play 18 games to win it all, not 17. And if you insist on including all conference champions, you can't eliminate the CCG's to shorten the season. A five round playoff just isn't feasible with a 12 game regular season. And 114 schools aren't going to agree to give up one or two home games so 14 can play on.

Ah, you're right, I counted wrong. And that's a good point about not giving up 2 games for the sake of a few.

Quote:That isn't an 8 team playoff. It's 14 teams. Why not just invite the top 16 teams? That would reduce the number of playoff rounds to four instead of five.

It's both a 14 & 8-team playoff (only 8 seeds) -- just separated to-earn it seeds, much like NCAA Basketball Tournament play-in games, yeah. The structure and different # of seeds is still 64 but added play-ins to "earn it". Two are for the bottom 16 seeds to duke it out (no pun intended) to "earn" the "real" remaining 16th spots, and two are Bubble teams duking it out to "earn" usually the 11th seed for the two remaining bubble positions.

That 8-team playoff with 2 slots to fight for: 1 being the Bubble Team War (#7 seed), and 1 being the G5 Champ War (#8 seed) -- much the same way the NCAA tourney's set up. It's not to merely add more teams to a playoff, but to give a Chance to teams that deserve an extended chance at least, for the "real" position in there.

Quote:There are many who think going to an 8-team playoff would already be asking college players to play too many games.

Yeah, but ask all fans or more importantly see how they'd react -- and fans would like it in the end ("Oh, I hate these 8/12/16 team playoffs! Poor guys play too many games!"). Are there too many games in the NFL? Don't hear people complaining about that. How about the #5-#8 would be seeded teams -- do you think they say "Oh, no, we'd rather just play in the Outback Bowl. Playing in an 8-team playoff would be too many games. Thanks but no thanks."? :)

The reason there's a "Whoah! Hold on here!" is due to people Stuck On Tradition. That's the real reason. College football is too stuck on it.

Quote:Under this scenario, after going 13-0, they'd then have to play two rounds of this play-in. Assuming they win, that's 15-0. Now, a team that has played 15 games is put against a team that has played 13. Even if they win that and advance to the semi's, that's game 16. If they made it to the natty, that's SEVENTEEN GAMES.

Yes, that's true, POTENTIALLY for just a couple teams a year IF they were to WIN IT ALL. The # of games isn't a problem. 17, 18 -- even 25. The problem is over what spanse of Time. December offers a lot of empty space -- although tradition likes to hold on to it, along with understandably keeping the spotlight on some G5 [early] bowls spaced apart.

I LIKE the 8-team playoff with 4-team Playins -- for the Bubble Seed (#7) and the AQ G5 Seed (#8). They could play right after Conf Champ week. The problem is, yes, not THEY, but just the Winners obtaining the #7 and #8 seed just had 2 extra weeks of work. To begin an 8-team playoff. You'd need a week off in-between play-in games and the playoff beginning, which is actually feasible. But beginning it Right after Conf Champ week would be a pain for them. Not enough time for that. But assuming that's their "punishment":

Dec 10th: 1st Round Play-Ins for #7 Bubble Seed, #8 G5 Champ Seed
Dec 17th: Final Round For Winners of #7, #8 Seeds
Dec 24th: BREAK
Dec 31st: 1st Round of 8-team Playoff (8->4 Teams)
Jan 7th: 2nd Round (4->2 Teams)
Jan 16th: National Championship

I don't see the "playing back to back" -- as in football you play back-to-back weeks all the time. Even in this, the Play-In teams would get a week Break.

The problem I see though, aside from traditionalism masked as other complaints:
- Extended CFB an extra week which the NFL wouldn't like.
- No break between end of regular season/champ-week & the 1st Play-In Round

Having a 12-team Playoff, IMO, would be fitting and not hard to do. BUT Bowl-Traditionalists would have a hissy fit and refer to too many games or other reasons. Same reasons why they hated the 4-team playoff idea. 12-Team Playoff wouldn't extend CFB season -- and you'd still get a break from end of champ-week to beginning:

Dec 10th: THE BREAK AFTER CHAMP WEEK
Dec 17th: #5-12 Seeds 1st Round
Dec 24th: Top 4 vs Above Winners
Dec 31st: Final 4
Jan 9th: National Championship (same sched as it was this year)

The whole "too many games" thing -- yes, that can be a problem, but again, it's more about Tradition. Nothing wrong with having more games -- you just need break-weeks put in to give it breathing room is all. The NFL won't like too many because with break-weeks, it'll extend the season into their post-season.